News “Zootopia” is being created for the Tree of Life theater

Cmdr_Crimson

Cmdr_Crimson

Well-Known Member
No Name said:
And is that a problem? Are you suggesting they should’ve put the money into creating an even better It’s Tough to Be a Bug instead? I feel like you have to know which one makes business sense…
Click to expand...
Well, sadly it would have been nice to see a refresh of the animation as it's pretty choppy looking in 1998 standards.
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
Cmdr_Crimson said:
Well, sadly it would have been nice to see a refresh of the animation as it's pretty choppy looking in 1998 standards.
Click to expand...
While that would’ve been good, and Disney does often let things age poorly (Imagination looks like it’s stuck in the early 2000s), I doubt refreshing the animation would’ve been so much less expensive than a complete replacement. There’s just no good financial argument for spending the money on a refresh of the existing show when it’s a prime opportunity to create something new and get a more relevant IP in the park.

Zootopia will be the newest PG Disney IP with a ride or show in the parks… and it’ll be 8 or 9 years old when this happens.
 
J

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
Captain Neo said:
I feel like there is untapped potential from both Social media and the regular media to really hammer Disney hard for shifting away from themes of conservation and education in order to just promote IP that they are going to pump out endless sequels and merchandise for during a period where we need to be all hands on deck fighting climate change.

I’m talking generally about stripping science out in both DAK and Epcot. Almost as if the current people in charge don’t understand the design and ideas behind these parks

They didn’t build these different parks just to have 4 different places to promote “brands”
Click to expand...
So you honestly think anyone outside of a few people on message boards gives 2 cents about some unwritten rule about what animals are allowed in animal kingdom, who gets to wear pants and who doesn't? Can you with a straight face say that any family in middle America knows what anthropomorphic means, let alone is wondering about the levels of characters in animal kingdom, and why Mickey and Mini in safari outfits are ok, but Judy Hops in a police uniform is the downfall of Disney society as we know it?

And as to anyone who actually takes conservation seriously, do you think they care at all if there character meet and greets at AK that have animals acting like humans? Do you think for one minute they see a huge difference between the Its tough to be a bug animal movie, vs a new Zootopia one? No they care about the actual conservation work the park/company does and its work with live animals.

These parks are theme/entertainment/vacation destinations. They aren't schools, they aren't microcosms of society, and they aren't (to most people) sacred temples that have to follow the philosophy of either its long dead founder or some imagineer who used to work for the company at one time. No one making decisions at Ford are sitting there going, we can't do that, Henry would never have wanted it. The general public isn't sitting around planning vacations and saying, we aren't going to WDW because its not following some ideas that might have played well 50-40 years ago, but don't at the moment.
 
EPCOTCenterLover

EPCOTCenterLover

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
So you honestly think anyone outside of a few people on message boards gives 2 cents about some unwritten rule about what animals are allowed in animal kingdom, who gets to wear pants and who doesn't? Can you with a straight face say that any family in middle America knows what anthropomorphic means, let alone is wondering about the levels of characters in animal kingdom, and why Mickey and Mini in safari outfits are ok, but Judy Hops in a police uniform is the downfall of Disney society as we know it?

And as to anyone who actually takes conservation seriously, do you think they care at all if there character meet and greets at AK that have animals acting like humans? Do you think for one minute they see a huge difference between the Its tough to be a bug animal movie, vs a new Zootopia one? No they care about the actual conservation work the park/company does and its work with live animals.

These parks are theme/entertainment/vacation destinations. They aren't schools, they aren't microcosms of society, and they aren't (to most people) sacred temples that have to follow the philosophy of either its long dead founder or some imagineer who used to work for the company at one time. No one making decisions at Ford are sitting there going, we can't do that, Henry would never have wanted it. The general public isn't sitting around planning vacations and saying, we aren't going to WDW because its not following some ideas that might have played well 50-40 years ago, but don't at the moment.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I agree with you and I'd love to be able to clearly hear your tone. That said, Once the breakdown in pure theme begins, who knows where it leads to, and the downgrade in what makes Disney Parks special begins. This is how you get the mishmash of themes and disjointedness of California Adventure.
 
Last edited:
networkpro

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
EPCOTCenterLover said:
Honestly, I agree with you and I'd love to be able to clearly hear your tone. That said, Once the breakdown in pure them begins, who knows where it leads to, and the downgrade in what makes Disney Parks special begins. This is how you get the mishmash of themes and disjointedness of California Adventure.
Click to expand...

IMHO DCA's original premise as a microcosm of how fun and amazing California is just as disjointed as the state is, a mishmash of urban and rural with many competing ideologies at play.
 
Tom Morrow

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
So you honestly think anyone outside of a few people on message boards gives 2 cents about some unwritten rule about what animals are allowed in animal kingdom, who gets to wear pants and who doesn't? Can you with a straight face say that any family in middle America knows what anthropomorphic means, let alone is wondering about the levels of characters in animal kingdom, and why Mickey and Mini in safari outfits are ok, but Judy Hops in a police uniform is the downfall of Disney society as we know it?

And as to anyone who actually takes conservation seriously, do you think they care at all if there character meet and greets at AK that have animals acting like humans? Do you think for one minute they see a huge difference between the Its tough to be a bug animal movie, vs a new Zootopia one? No they care about the actual conservation work the park/company does and its work with live animals.

These parks are theme/entertainment/vacation destinations. They aren't schools, they aren't microcosms of society, and they aren't (to most people) sacred temples that have to follow the philosophy of either its long dead founder or some imagineer who used to work for the company at one time. No one making decisions at Ford are sitting there going, we can't do that, Henry would never have wanted it. The general public isn't sitting around planning vacations and saying, we aren't going to WDW because its not following some ideas that might have played well 50-40 years ago, but don't at the moment.
Click to expand...

The theme parks are a unique form of entertainment and storytelling and should be utilized as such, not as dumping grounds for random IP for marketing synergy. It dilutes the purpose and identity of each park and comes off as more cynically "corporate" than when things are added that fit organically.

I don't think "the average person doesn't care" is ever a good argument. It's not the average person's job to consider stuff like this, but if nobody ever thought about it then the product would have been homogenized crap all along, but it wasn't. The average person has no real idea of how to make a great film, but if nobody thought about it then we wouldn't ever get great films.
 
Last edited:
comics101

comics101

Well-Known Member
ToTBellHop said:
Saint Rohde explains it’s okay because Flik wears a hat made of leaves instead of actual pants. Once you put on pants, you don’t belong. That’s why I always take my pants off on the bus ride over. I don’t want any fanboys to be uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I know Rohde didn't add the following caveat, and I know that this is a joke, but I personally find A Bug's Life/Zootopia attractions in the Tree of Life Theatre more justifiable than an entire Zootopia land because it is a single, B- or C-ticket attraction located in a park-appropriate setting. Would I prefer a grand, transcendent show dedicated to nature and man's relationship with the animal kingdom? Sure, but I'll take this small Zootopia "aside" over an entire Zootopia land for DAK anyday. The 3-D show is far preferable to the large, cartoon cityscape that might have been added.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
comics101 said:
I know Rohde didn't add the following caveat, and I know that this is a joke, but I personally find A Bug's Life/Zootopia attractions in the Tree of Life Theatre more justifiable than an entire Zootopia land because it is a single, B- or C-ticket attraction located in a park-appropriate setting. Would I prefer a grand, transcendent show dedicated to nature and man's relationship with the animal kingdom? Sure, but I'll take this small Zootopia "aside" over an entire Zootopia land for DAK anyday. The 3-D show is far preferable to the large, cartoon cityscape that might have been added.
Click to expand...
Plus, if we want a show that 3-year olds can watch, this makes sense.

Indy has a higher height requirement than Dino (46” vs. 40”), because it’s more violent. So making the 3D show more kid-friendly is a good idea.
 
seabreezept813

seabreezept813

Well-Known Member
ToTBellHop said:
Plus, if we want a show that 3-year olds can watch, this makes sense.

Indy has a higher height requirement than Dino (46” vs. 40”), because it’s more violent. So making the 3D show more kid-friendly is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they would bother changing the track and if they don't then there should be no need for a height requirement change. My DD5 did dino this summer and last summer and was never super scared of it, but just a little overstimulated enough not to want to repeat it. The bug show never did in my kids at age 1 or 2, but my SD flipped at age 7. Knowing when to avoid the sting or shut their eyes helps though.
 
D

DKampy

Well-Known Member
EagleScout610 said:
When do you all wager Tough to be a Bug goes down? And for how long?
Click to expand...
Right now my best guess…is it will open sometime in 2025… I suspect these new attractions are meant to last a few years with maybe opening a couple a year so WDW has something new every year so people will still plan for WDW while going to Epic Universe… IMO Zootopia show will be the 1st attraction worked on then when that opens they will have something new to tout while they close Dinosaur to work on Indy
 
SilentWindODoom

SilentWindODoom

Well-Known Member
Tom Morrow said:
The theme parks are a unique form of entertainment and storytelling and should be utilized as such, not as dumping grounds for random IP for marketing synergy. It dilutes the purpose and identity of each park and comes off as more cynically "corporate" than when things are added that fit organically.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly on this. Unfortunately, much like similar outrage on this board, this is one time when it makes no sense. Indy is shoehorning IP where it doesn't belong unless they make changes or additions to make it fit. If Journey of Water were in Animal Kingdom in its current state, that would be shoehorning. Inside Out, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It Ralph, or Cinderella would be shoehorning.

This is not Robin Hood, where a few snake jokes, trumpeting elephants, and Alan A'Dale's comment about the Animal Kingdom at the start are the only thing that make it different from a human cast. The fact that the characters in Zootopia are animals and their different behaviors and habitats are a part of the setting. Using them and the city that's divided into biomes to teach about those biomes is an easy execution.
 
Captain Neo

Captain Neo

Well-Known Member
JMcMahonEsq said:
So you honestly think anyone outside of a few people on message boards gives 2 cents about some unwritten rule about what animals are allowed in animal kingdom, who gets to wear pants and who doesn't? Can you with a straight face say that any family in middle America knows what anthropomorphic means, let alone is wondering about the levels of characters in animal kingdom, and why Mickey and Mini in safari outfits are ok, but Judy Hops in a police uniform is the downfall of Disney society as we know it?

And as to anyone who actually takes conservation seriously, do you think they care at all if there character meet and greets at AK that have animals acting like humans? Do you think for one minute they see a huge difference between the Its tough to be a bug animal movie, vs a new Zootopia one? No they care about the actual conservation work the park/company does and its work with live animals.

These parks are theme/entertainment/vacation destinations. They aren't schools, they aren't microcosms of society, and they aren't (to most people) sacred temples that have to follow the philosophy of either its long dead founder or some imagineer who used to work for the company at one time. No one making decisions at Ford are sitting there going, we can't do that, Henry would never have wanted it. The general public isn't sitting around planning vacations and saying, we aren't going to WDW because its not following some ideas that might have played well 50-40 years ago, but don't at the moment.
Click to expand...

yes
 
erasure fan1

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
comics101 said:
but I'll take this small Zootopia "aside" over an entire Zootopia land for DAK anyday. The 3-D show is far preferable to the large, cartoon cityscape that might have been added.
Click to expand...
While I agree in principle. The problem I see with straying outside of what really fits, even if it's just a more minor addition. Is the fear that when Disney sees a spike in popularity, they will use that as license to start shoving things in that just don't belong. Animal Kingdom is one of the most well put together theme parks, from the actual theme standpoint, in the world. It's the last of the parks that really has a strong identity as a whole. Will this be Zootopia, or Characters from Zootopia talking about conservation? We don't know how this will fit in with the theme/mission of the park yet. But I can absolutely see why this could be a slippery slope situation. Modern Disney has been more miss than hit with the parks thematic integrity.

I don't think most people would have a problem if they said it was going to change to Russell and Dougs wilderness explorer show. Even though up as a film wouldn't jump out as a great fit for Animal kingdom. Everyone can see that something like the wilderness explorers does fit right in. Russell could be going for his wilderness conservation badge and he needs our help to complete it. Antics ensue, we learn some stuff about the environment and conservation, Russell gets his badge and done. Perfect fit for the park. And having an awesome Doug animatronic would just be fantastic. Can they accomplish the same thing with Zootopia? Sure. Would it feel as organic? Probably not, because it hasn't been established with the IP before.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom